⭕In fact, #Uniswap V4 revolves around one theme: increasing efficiency and reducing costs（gas fees）！

1.Singleton——Reduce costs (gas fees)💰

This is a design that changes the underlying architecture of Uniswap. Originally, there were multiple tokens and multiple contracts, but now there are multiple tokens and one contract.

The main purpose is to change the original liquidity pool. They are packaged and aggregated. To give an easy-to-understand example:

Originally, if you wanted to take a bus, you needed to go to a fixed stop to take a specific bus. But now, you can go directly to the bus parking lot and get on any bus you want without having to find an additional stop.

Based on this logic, it is much easier to go where you want or take the bus you want, which reduces interaction costs.

Furthermore, this design needs to be combined with the EIP-1153 protocol, which can further reduce the cost of a single transaction. However, EIP-1153 needs to be deployed after the Cancun upgrade, so the actual deployment of V4 will also have to wait until after Cancun .

Regarding EIP-1153: it can be simply understood as temporary expansion of the block to accommodate transactions, which can reduce gas fees.

⭕However, the use of this protocol is not competitive, as #Uni can use it and other swaps can as well~

2.Hooks——increasing efficiency📈

⭕I summarize the main purpose as: customized and modularized pools.

This means that various functions are packaged and given to developers, and developers only need to customize them according to the specific needs of their own project pools.

Under the condition of modular combination, the operational space of the pool becomes larger, which means that the creation of the pool will be more in line with the functions that the pool itself needs (of course, this operational space must be within the scope that can be provided). It is basically equivalent to giving you a module library.

3.V4 is not that magical❌

Every time there is good news in the Dex field, it is compared to Cex.

Can they really be compared? Although they have overlapping functions, they are not the same thing, and there is an insurmountable gap in terms of demand.

Why? Because users are always lazy❗

No matter how dazzling various functions are, they cannot solve problems outside of trading, such as liquidation, understanding thresholds, and after-sales service...

These are pain points that Dex cannot solve, but are services that Cex can provide. Pool interaction and token trading can be done by Dex, but the trading experience for tokens is clearly better on Cex

Why? Because of filtering❗

The listing filtering mechanism that the centralized exchange comes with is not available in Dex.

Filtering is important because it is the endorsement of security and platform trust brought by third-party centralization.

Finally, allow me to make a sarcastic comment that even if Uniswap V4 is done really well, it has not brought any improvement to Uni's token economy, lol~